Dynaudio Esotar2 e430’s. End of story (as long as your budget allows).

 

What are the price for these?

 

MSRP is currently $1,699. My price would be better though.

When they first came out like 15+ years ago they were $1400, so actually pretty reasonable increase considering.

 

Pretty crazy these are still top dog after 15 years.

 

Best regardless of price, ZR labs should be in the conversation.

 

ZR Speaker Lab Extravaganza, Accuton C100AM or any of three models, Dynaudio Esotar 430.... dynaudio being way the most cheap option...
Those are car audio hi-end drivers with hi-end price

 

Scanspeak 12mu
700 bucks for a pair.

seems like scanspeak lost their glory in this forum even though they are one of the best hi end speaker manufacturers out there

 

Actually instead of the 12m, the ScanSpeak 11M Gold is better, IMHO, and only around $550.

 

What about Purifi

 

People have already mentioned the best. I should mention that in my experience the bigger the driver, the better the sound. So if you can fit a 4.5” driver in your specific circumstance, don’t go with a 3” or 2.5” bc regardless of how much you spend, you’ll be at a significant deficit with the smaller drivers.

Since high end and exotic / luxury mids have been offered already, I’ll just mention that hybrid audios L3 pro’s I’ve personally tested against numerous other mid range drivers of similar price and they were head and shoulders above them all.

But if I could have any mid I wanted within reason - the dyn e430’s would be an easy choice.

 

It is hard to believe that 430 is the top dog in every case. Based on this everybody would have to run Mundorf AMTs and 430.

 

Very great options mentioned by all. Thanks!!

I've never heard of the dyn e430s so ill have to look into them a bit since they seem highly regarded.

In this set up, pillar mounting and having them on axis will be an absolute must. Size wise, I could fit up to a 4" driver before they become too big imo.

My budget on the mids is $1400 for the pair. I'm willing to spend a little more if the cost/benefit is there, but ideally I'd like to stay under budget.

As far as the crossovers go, I've had good results crossing at 380, and 3800 respectively. Once I start tuning (I self tune) of course, I could adjust them based on the measurements.

 

My budget on the mids is $1400 for the pair. I'm willing to spend a little more if the cost/benefit is there, but ideally I'd like to stay under budget.

I think a set of Esotar 430's will cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,600.00 for the set. But they're definitely worth it.

I know a few others have mentioned ZR F1 mids, as well as Accuton.
I would agree those are 'premium' drivers, and they do sound amazing... but they come with a hefty price tag.
WAY more than an Esotar 430.

 

In terms of raw analytical data, Dynaudio e430's can easily be outperformed by drivers that cost half as much.

 

Maybe, but listening test after listening test, they are always considered the best/among the best.

 

I'm an oddball in that I thought the Xcelsus XMXM325's sounded better than the 430's I had, and I think I gave them both a fair and lengthy audition in two different vehicles. My 430's were used so who knows, they sounded magical enough when I first replaced some Scanspeak mids (12m I think, memory fuzzy), but the 325's had a bit more liveliness and are much cheaper.

That being said, the Accuton C100 mid's are another level. They retail for $4k (and that's a real world price) but I found mine for half that lightly used after i had a financial windfall. Not sure the difference is worth that kind of money (unless that kind of money isn't a big deal for you) but its definitely noticeable.

 

The Bliesma 3" domes have very low distortion from 800/1000-2500/3000Hz depending on the model. High sensitivity as well.

BlieSMa M74A-6, M74B-6, M74P-6 and M74S-6 | HiFiCompass

What is on the test bench? In the end of 2021, the German company BlieSMa pleased the loudspeaker designers community with the release of a line of four 3" dome midranges at once, the development of which had been rumored for a long time.

hificompass.com

I've been drooling over the thought using of the M74B-6 in combination with the T25B- in a 5" wave guide. Too pricey for me and too nice for my car but it should make for absolutely killer mids and highs.

 

ESB 9000 midrange one of best so faar.. for me!

had heard:
mss3
xxm425
e430
carbon mm3
zr 12am
MP Z series Z100 (top of my list sad but its discontinued)
Scans 12mu
Brax GL/ML 3

next ll try 6.5” in dash MP Z series z170

 

Is Dyn and ZR not using construction techniques to reduce the effects of Eddy currents?

 

If we take a deeper dive into the T/S parameters from Dynaudio's website, we're able to determine how they counter acted the eddy currents from the aluminum former. As an example, let's compare the e430 to Scan's 12MU.

Note: these parameters were pulled from each manufacturer's website, not a DATS.

The Scan has a larger cone surface (Sd) of 58 cm2 (vs 45cm2 for the e430) and a slightly heavier moving mass (Mms) of 5.4 grams (vs 4.9 grams for the e430). These figures are logical since the 12MU is a physically larger driver so it should have a larger cone surface and heavier cone (which it does) over the e430. The compliance of suspension (Cms) is almost the same between the two (1.15mm/N for the Scan vs 1.2mm/N for the e430). For the folks that don't know, the 'N' is Newton and the 'mm' listed in the amount of movement per Newton of force. Since the difference between these two drivers is .05mm they're virtually identical stiffnesses. However, if you take a look at the 12MU's motor force, you'll notice it's less than the e430. The Scan's motor force (BL) is 5.1Tm while the e430's is 6.2Tm.

Now that the comparison of specs is out of the way, you might be asking yourself the question why a smaller driver (e430) that has essentially the same suspension stiffness as the larger (12MU) would need more motor force? After all, the e430 cone weighs less, and pushes less air out of the way as it oscillates, so why the need for a more powerful motor? Now you know why. The additional resistance of eddy currents forces Dynaudio to attach a more powerful motor to compensate for them even though their cone is less weight and pushes around less air.

There are probably a few in this thread that will say I'm picking on Dynaudio - I'm not. One of the benefits of using an aluminum former is its thermal conductivity. Winding a voice coil to an aluminum former allows the voice coil to better cool itself through conductivity. It's the same reason why subs typically have aluminum formers - to expel heat. If you used Nomex or fiberglass as a former on a sub, the voice coil is going to build up a lot more heat since the former is no longer thermally conductive. Yes, the use of pole vents will help, magnet vents will help, phase plugs will help, but air vents don't physically touch the voice coil and can't cool the voice coil as fast an aluminum former can. Another negative with metal formers (aluminum or titanium) is their thermal coefficient of expansion. Depending on how large of a gap is used for the voice coil, as you heat up the former it's going to expand just like any metal does. If you don't account for this, or make your gap too tight, or drive your speaker harder than you should, then more and more heat is going to be expanding that metal. While titanium doesn't have nearly the thermal conductivity capacity of aluminum, it has the benefit of not producing eddy currents, so it's the lesser of two evils in this regard. The logic (for a midrange) is that you're typically not driving them to their limits, and thanks to human hearing sensitivity at midrange frequencies (Fletcher Munson curve), we don't need to push them hard to meet our listening needs.

If you're still following along at this point you can probably figure out the negatives of fiberglass and Nomex formers on your own. While they aren't metals and don't suffer from the pitfall of thermal expansion like a metal does, that also means they don't have the ability to expel heat using conductivity like a metal does. However, for midrange duty, expelling heat is far less of a problem than it is for midbass and subs. It doesn't take long to overheat a sub (especially those with smaller voice coils), but it takes far more effort to overheat a midrange (assuming you're using it in the proper bandwidth).

As you can see, speaker design is a give and take relationship, the material choice automatically means you're favoring one material to achieve a goal, but that also means you're sacrificing something else in the process.

Yea, I know, blah blah blah.... TLDR.

 

I’ve been using the 12MU’s in my car for about a year now and they have been highly impressive. I’ve also had the 11M’s and they sounded pretty good as well. The 12MU’s will definetely take a beating for sure

 

Great info BTW!! So Dyn took a more powerful motor to counteract the resistive properties of Eddie currents. There are some winding and voicecoil former construction techniques to further reduce them as well but I have no clue if they use those. So essentially my questions would be, if Dyn counteracted the negative aspects of Eddie currents with a more powerful motor, there must still be some negative effects still remaining? Are there any positive effects of Eddie currents? Qes? Total Q? Could Eddie currents be a benefit for cone control (dampening) at a certain level of current allowing for a better overall Q factor?

 

This video, although about their tweeters, describes some of these same things very well, e.g., that a high end speaker is a combination of many factors, that a speaker can test perfect and sound horrible, that materials used have an impact and must be judged by the overall result. I have zero doubt that Dynaudio and ZR, if they believed titanium was better for this particular piece in their particular speaker than aluminum, they would have invested the few cents extra to use it. The reference above to a more powerful motor speaks to the fact that the Dynaudio Esotars ask for so much more power than the Focal 3wm, correct? The video sold me that these Dynaudio guys know what they are doing, and are passionate about it.

 

I agree 100%. One thing I took from the video more than one occasion, was "Not something that has to measure right, it has to sound right." "You can't measure everything; you have to listen to it". That's the key to the right formula regardless how it measures. I certainly believe that Dyn and ZR kept the aluminum formers because they in fact have more benefits than disadvantages within their design. These are high end companies; they are not worried about costs associated with a material change if it produced better sound. So regardless of raw analytical data, the ears must have the final say.

 

One thing I want to mention is that there’s a point of diminishing returns. When it comes down to it ,if all aspects of the system are accounted for, they all will sound pretty similar if built by the same person. The differences come down to the different cabins.

 

The differences come down to the different cables.

That's what I 1st saw.

 

This is probably going to be a lengthy post. Sorry if you have the attention span of a gnat.

Great info BTW!! So Dyn took a more powerful motor to counteract the resistive properties of Eddie currents.

Correct! On the surface, Dyn’s increased BL may not seem significant at first, but when observed in terms of percentages, the difference is more striking. Using the same 12MU vs e430 comparison, the e430 has a motor force that is ~21.6% stronger than the 12MU, yet the e430’s cone size is 29% smaller than the 12MU’s! -That’s a powerful motor! Not to mention, aluminum has a density (weight) that’s 66% less than titanium! Now you can see why Dyn chose neodymium rather than ferrite. Although neo is more expensive, an equivalent ferrite motor would be quite large (both deeper and wider) making it far more difficult to install into a-pillars (which I’m sure Dyn took this into account considering it’s marketed as a car audio driver).

There are some winding and voicecoil former construction techniques to further reduce them as well but I have no clue if they use those.

Without dissecting an e430, it’s difficult to know. Is there an easy way to remove eddy currents from an aluminum former? Yes. When you attach (or in the case of speakers) glue wire to a former, you’ve essentially created an electromagnet. For a speaker, the motor structure (magnetic field) places an electronic current on an otherwise non-magnetic metal (such as an aluminum former). If you want to drill deep into this topic, you can research Lenz’s Law, but for the sake of this discussion, the induced current on the former that’s created due to the motor structure is where the eddy current comes from. To break this current, you can cut the former along its length to break the current flow. It’s difficult to explain, but much easier to visualize. Watch the YouTube video below and you’ll witness this first hand. In the video there are 2 round aluminum circles (think of them as aluminum formers). One of them is continuous (on the right with no cuts), and the one on the left has a cut along its length to break the flow of current. Watch what happens. This is a very simple method to significantly reduce eddy currents.

How will the former hold its shape if you slice it you ask? Remember, you’re adding voice coil wire to the former with high temp adhesive, so the voice coil wire itself maintains the gap of the former. So why don’t they do this then? Simple, because as you can imagine, there is huge structural /detrimental harm and risk associated with this method to the former. Voice coil wire is extremely thin (especially on midranges / tweeters). It just doesn’t have the structural integrity to maintain the former’s shape on its own. Keep in mind it’s not just one direction that matters here. Not only do we want to maintain the gap (open / close motion), but there is also the sheer motion (up / down) on each side of the gap, and you also have to factor the front / back motion as well so the former keeps the same uniform diameter.

The above is just one method. For the case of aluminum formers, Lenz’ Law is proportional to the amount of aluminum present. This means you can reduce eddy currents by reducing the amount of aluminum (mass). For example, you could remove mass by making the former thinner; or, you can drill a bunch of holes in the former to reduce its mass….or a combination of both. But, this strategy also has its share of problems too (cost, strength reduction, etc).

So essentially my questions would be, if Dyn counteracted the negative aspects of Eddie currents with a more powerful motor, there must still be some negative effects still remaining?

For speaker design, the eddy currents associated with aluminum formers are the biggest negative. If we assume Dynaudio didn’t use any eddy current mitigating strategies for a moment, we can think about some negatives. Due to the resistive properties of aluminum formers, the most obvious negative are slower transients (cone speed).

Let’s take a moment and overly simplify a speaker by using your hand to move up and down (like you’re at an arcade and trying to hit a Pac-man machine button as fast as you can). Now, imagine the same situation but with more resistance….such as performing the exact same motion under water. Think of the water in this crude example as eddy currents. You might have enough muscle to achieve the same pace of button hitting under water, but it’s getting a lot more difficult to do so. If you can’t keep up, then you’re going to need more muscle; or, in the case of a speaker, that additional muscle comes in the form of more motor force (which was Dyn’s solution to this problem).

Are there any positive effects of Eddie currents? Qes? Total Q? Could Eddie currents be a benefit for cone control (dampening) at a certain level of current allowing for a better overall Q factor?

Absolutely there are positive effects of eddy currents! As an example, the majority of subwoofer manufactures use eddy currents (through the use of aluminum formers) to naturally brake the cone and reduce its chances of bottoming out. Human hearing isn’t nearly as sensitive at subwoofer frequencies compared to midrange ones, so any possible transient inaccuracies aren’t heard. This is one of the reasons why eddy currents are a great application in subs – it’s like an electromagnetic dampener.

If your mental creative gears are turning and asking yourself ‘what if you combine a non-eddy material for the middle of the former and add aluminum to intentionally eddy brake it on the ends?’ Guess what, your dreams have been answered! Audio Technology does exactly that with their KA (Kapton Aluminum) system. However, this is only available on their larger (77mm and up) coils.

The reference above to a more powerful motor speaks to the fact that the Dynaudio Esotars ask for so much more power than the Focal 3wm, correct?

Dyn’s greater motor force is one of the reasons why they have a higher power handling. Naturally, your amp has to overcome the higher motor force to move the cone, but there are other factors too. Dyn’s aluminum former is able to suck up and dissipate heat better than Focal’s fiberglass former as well. This also contributes to a higher power handling.

Since fiberglass isn’t conductive, you may be wondering how Focal is going to handle the heat problem in the voice coil. Fiberglass isn’t conductive and can’t suck up any heat like aluminum can, so what did they do to solve this issue? If we check spec sheets, Focal’s strategy was to increase the size of the voice coil (45mm) to give the voice coil more thermal mass and accept more heat. Dyn’s e430 has a voice coil diameter of 34mm. What we don’t know is if Focal increased the thickness of the voice coil wire itself as well (not known from the spec sheet). From these two examples, you can start to see some of the differences in construction methods between speakers roughly the same size from different companies.

 

Again Mad, good stuff!! There are some mitigation strategies with cutting the former and supporting the cut with a different material. Again, no clue if they use anything. In reality though, not knowing the design of these companies' formers, we certainly can't speculate with accuracy to what level, if any, they are affected by Eddie currents. Really making any comparison of voice coil formers between manufacturers unscientific (unknown variables). Reason I even say that, and I'll add my own speculation, aluminum certainly might be the overall best choice if Eddie currents are negated or eliminated with whatever tech.